Dismissed

Sri Thimmappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/6670/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition. The court held that the pendency of an interim order in a related writ petition does not justify a stay on further proceedings in a separate civil suit for adverse possession. Consequently, the dismissal of the Section 151 application by the trial court was found to be without error.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court dismissing the application under Section 151 of the CPC was confirmed.

Sri Thimmappa Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:18723 WP No. 6670 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 6670 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. THIMMAPPA, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HUNISEKATTE GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK - 577 526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

( BY SRI. LAXMINARAYANA., ADVOCATE )

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶14

TAHSILDAR, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.

¶15

REVENUE INSPECTOR, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:18723 WP No. 6670 of 2024

¶18

VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, HUNAVINADU PARK, HALE TALUK KACHERI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.RANSA VASANTHI D.L., HCGP)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDAIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C HOSADURGA ON I.A.NO.12 IN O.S.NO.12/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE - E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner filed O.S.No.12/2021 before the Senior

¶25

Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga and has contended that, he became the owner of the suit schedule property by way

¶26

of adverse possession. The suit is filed against the State.

¶27

During the pendency of the suit, an order came to be passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to evict the petitioner from the land in question on the ground that he is a land grabber.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18723 WP No. 6670 of 2024

¶29

The petitioner has challenged the same by way of W.P.No.1918/2022(KLR-RES). It is submitted that an interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in the said writ petition. On the ground that an interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.1918/2022(KLR-RES) and the further proceedings in O.S.No.12/2021 has to be stayed, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 151 of the CPC. The trial Court has dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioner is to declare him as the owner of the property on the ground of adverse possession. It is for the petitioner to prove his case to the effect that he is entitled to be so declared as the owner on the ground of adverse possession. The same has to be proved independent of the orders that has been passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, which is the subject matter of W.P.No.1918/2022(KLR-RES). Pendency of the said writ

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:18723 WP No. 6670 of 2024

¶32

¶33

petition and an interim order being passed in the said writ petition in favour of the petitioner herein is not a ground

¶34

for the petitioner to pray for the stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.12/2021. For that reason, I do not see any error in the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Thimmappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thimmappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Starlog Enterprises Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of New Mangalore Port Trust

Sri Yathish Gupta Vs Smt Ambika

A Ananthalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangahanumaiah M Vs Sri D Shankarappa

Sri Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Vs Smt Kalpana Palegar

Smt. Rukmini Bai, Vs Sri Bhagavathi Devaru